post here when someone decides to run for president in 2016

[MakeItRain]

Sure

I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage, and That being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code.

Bigot


CNN's Dana Bash pushed presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on his views on same-sex marriage on Sunday, asking him why, as a libertarian, he doesn't believe gay people should have the freedom to marry.

"Why do you believe just as a core principle, as a libertarian, that people should be left alone, but not when it comes to their right to marry somebody they love?" Bash asked Paul on "State of the Union."

"I do believe people ought to be left alone," Paul responded. "I don't care who you are or what you do at home or who your friends are or what, you know, where you hang out, what kind of music you listen to. What you do in your home is your own business."

"But not when it comes to marriage," Bash added.

Paul responded by differentiating between traditional marriage and a "contract" between gay people.

"Well, no. I mean states -- states will end up making the decisions on these things. I think that there's a religious connotation to marriage. I believe in the traditional religious connotation to this," Paul answered. "But I also believe people ought to be treated fairly under the law. I see no reason why if the marriage contract conveys certain things that if -- if you -- if you want to marry another woman that you can do that and have a contract." Pauls has said before that gay marriage "offends" him and that a "moral crisis" in the U.S. led to same-sex marriage. He's also pitched allowing gays to make a contract with each other, but not get married.

insincere bigot

[MakeItRain]

I bet you thought I was going to mention the fact that he disagrees with the premise of the Civil Rights Act because he doesn't believe the federal government should be involved in what he believes is a states right issue. Whatever. I am interested in how in one case he believes that federal intervention is not needed to grant civil rights, but in another he is in favor of the federal government intervening in restricting a civil right.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't even know why you guys ask.

MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.

Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!

Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.

Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)! 

But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!


These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves.  It's sad.

[michigancat]

I don't even know why you guys ask.

MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.

Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!

Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.

Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)! 

But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!


These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves.  It's sad.

his opposition to the Civil Rights Act is pretty bad

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

And another Chad next to (D) falls to the floor.

Like I said, these people have no minds, no thought process. They are closed minded and will do and say anything for the D.

[michigancat]

And another Chad next to (D) falls to the floor.

Like I said, these people have no minds, no thought process. They are closed minded and will do and say anything for the D.

Hillary sucks, I won't vote for her.

[OK_Cat]

Hillary is the most stable option at this point. Everyone else is super insane.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Hillary is the most stable option at this point. Everyone else is super insane.

Jeb seems pretty stable, too.

[CNS]

Not voting for her.

[CNS]

Unless the dems come up with a strong challenger, this election is Jeb's to lose, imo.
 Edit: meaning someone not hillary.

[OK_Cat]

Jeb seems like the 'black sheep' of the bush family or whatever and will go out of his way to not gain his fathers approval or something.

[OK_Cat]

'Jeb, tell them you hate the gays'

Jeb kisses a dude in front of Barbara

[Rage Against the McKee]

Unless the dems come up with a strong challenger, this election is Jeb's to lose, imo.
 Edit: meaning someone not hillary.

Jeb has to get out of his primary first. Lots of pubs hate him for putting being a decent human being ahead of party politics.

[MakeItRain]

I don't even know why you guys ask.

MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.

Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!

Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.

Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)! 

But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!


These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves.  It's sad.

You guys notice that FSD conveniently danced around the point, funny little thing you did there I'll address these things though.

1. Paul has said several different times in several different ways that he views gays getting married as different, non-traditional. I don't need to make the argument as to why he is a bigot, he did it for me. He has not made the argument that you tried to attribute to him "ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage," nice try. I posted a stand alone quote and all of his quotes from another interview and never did he mention that the government shouldn't license marriage, he hid behind religion.

2. What Obama did is even more abhorrent than what Paul is doing. I respect Paul for sticking to his convictions no matter how wrong they are. Obama absolutely did believe that gays should have the right to marry but he shoved that aside for political reasoning; it was disgusting and I'm glad he righted that wrong. What the hell does that have to do with Rand Paul though, is Obama his adviser?

3. I guess I missed my post advocating for Hilary Clinton. What the hell does she have to do with Rand Paul being inconsistent on states rights as they relate to civil rights?

4. I think he acted like that on that interview because he's an bad person. No one on this blog called Rand Paul a sexist, not sure why you brought it up. Deflect deflect deflect.

Ironic that you talked about intellectual credibility when you tried to smoke screen and deflect your way to a sorry ass counter argument instead of just addressing what Paul has said multiple times.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Serious question because I can't profess to be really familiar with either candidate, but why are Scott Walker or Marco Rubio "super insane"? I mean, I can understand why liberals hate Ted Cruz, who is an unabashed conservative but sometimes goes off the rails to make his point.

But what about Walker and Rubio? They both seem to be fresh, energetic, reasonably conservative, and generally reasonable. Both would seem like a very palatable alternative to Hillary for everyone except deeply indoctrinated Dems.

Jeb Bush would be a decent president - better than we've got now - but almost nobody wants another round of Clinton v. Bush. It would lead to serious voter apathy, which would probably work to Hillary's advantage given her likely edge in turnout machine. One of her biggest weaknesses is that she's old and stale, and a fresher face on the other side can better exploit that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Serious question because I can't profess to be really familiar with either candidate, but why are Scott Walker or Marco Rubio "super insane"? I mean, I can understand why liberals hate Ted Cruz, who is an unabashed conservative but sometimes goes off the rails to make his point.

But what about Walker and Rubio? They both seem to be fresh, energetic, reasonably conservative, and generally reasonable. Both would seem like a very palatable alternative to Hillary for everyone except deeply indoctrinated Dems.

Jeb Bush would be a decent president - better than we've got now - but almost nobody wants another round of Clinton v. Bush. It would lead to serious voter apathy, which would probably work to Hillary's advantage given her likely edge in turnout machine. One of her biggest weaknesses is that she's old and stale, and a fresher face on the other side can better exploit that.

I don't know much about Rubio. He seems like a nice enough person that I might be willing to vote for. Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

[MakeItRain]

Serious question because I can't profess to be really familiar with either candidate, but why are Scott Walker or Marco Rubio "super insane"? I mean, I can understand why liberals hate Ted Cruz, who is an unabashed conservative but sometimes goes off the rails to make his point.

But what about Walker and Rubio? They both seem to be fresh, energetic, reasonably conservative, and generally reasonable. Both would seem like a very palatable alternative to Hillary for everyone except deeply indoctrinated Dems.

Jeb Bush would be a decent president - better than we've got now - but almost nobody wants another round of Clinton v. Bush. It would lead to serious voter apathy, which would probably work to Hillary's advantage given her likely edge in turnout machine. One of her biggest weaknesses is that she's old and stale, and a fresher face on the other side can better exploit that.

Not sure who used the term super insane that you put in quotations, but there are such small differences between Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul are so small it really doesn't merit discussion. The biggest difference is that Cruz is certainly more of a grandstanding jackass but the policy beliefs are pretty much the same.

I'd say the same thing about Jeb and Hillary, both moderates prone to swing one way or the other on certain issues, whatever makes them seem the most centrist. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

The issues are mostly irrelevant. I just pick the candidate who preserves the largest sliver of integrity. Not going out of your way to show that you are an bad person is also a good selling point.

[MakeItRain]

The issues are mostly irrelevant. I just pick the candidate who preserves the largest sliver of integrity. Not going out of your way to show that you are an bad person is also a good selling point.

So I'm guessing you're 100% out on Christie.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The issues are mostly irrelevant. I just pick the candidate who preserves the largest sliver of integrity. Not going out of your way to show that you are an bad person is also a good selling point.

So I'm guessing you're 100% out on Christie.

90%. Everything is relative and there is plenty of time for everyone else to make themselves look worse.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.

Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.

Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.

I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.

[CNS]

I agree w that.